By:  Bryan Bienias, Esq.

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed in part and rejected in part the National Labor Relations Board’s Banner Estrella decision regarding an employer’s requirement of confidentiality during workplace investigations. In doing so, the Court did not address, and essentially left intact, both the Board’s prohibition of

By: Michael Rybicki, Esq.

Seyfarth Summary: The relevance of the National Labor Relations Act to industries and business sectors that have not traditionally had to deal with its implications – such as hedge funds.

The New York Times recently ran on the front page of its business section a lengthy article discussing the National

By: Michele Haydel Gehrke, Esq.

In a 2-1 decision with Board Member Philip Miscimarra dissenting, the National Labor Relations Board recently held that Philips Electronics North America Corp. violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by having an unwritten confidentiality rule prohibiting employees from discussing their disciplinary records.  Philips Electronics North America

By:  Ashley K. Laken, Esq.

On January 31, NLRB Administrative Law Judge Susan Flynn ruled that two provisions of a non-unionized hospital’s code of conduct unlawfully interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights.  The ALJ also deemed unlawful a hospital official’s oral instruction to an employee to not discuss with others on staff the hospital’s

By:  Michele Haydel Gehrke, Esq.

On July 26, 2013, NLRB Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey D. Wedekind ruled that The Boeing Co.’s policy of routinely asking employees to refrain from discussing any investigation with other employees was unlawful.  This decision is in line with the Board’s earlier decisions, including Banner Estrella Medical Center, 358

By:  Kamran Mirrafati, Esq.

The NLRB Division of Advice recently issued a Memorandum finding that an employer’s confidentiality rule violated Section 8(a)(1) by precluding discussions about ongoing investigations into employee misconduct.  However, in reaching this decision, the Associate General Counsel proposed language that it would consider to be lawful.  [See Verso Paper,